Here, have some disconnected thoughts.

[lisefrac]

I pray my dad never discovers Groupon.

--

I dreamt I was playing a large-scale, live-action version of Crusader Kings. ... oh, wait, that's called the Middle Ages, isn't it?

--

Earworm of the day: Rammstein's "Stirbt nicht vor mir."

Click to view

--

I think I am going to do Camp NaNoWriMo this July, to jumpstart my new novel, A Lioness Embarked. Anyone

Comments

[laurion]

Huh. Why do people stick with the Monarchy and Feudalism were terrible trope? Like every other system there are ups and downs, and they often depend on circumstances and people rather than innate principles. I mean, even with the examples of Athenian democracy, Roman republic, Egyptian theocracy, and many many other examples, much of the world stuck with, or still sticks with, Monarchy or limited Monarchy. It isn't like they were unaware of other options.

[lisefrac]

I don't think what I wrote necessarily disagrees with this ;) Every government or economic system has a place and time. But feudalism (with a monarchy attached) gets a bad rap because it's a system where 90% of the population supports 10% at the top, and where that 10% has its role because it was "ordained by god" (divine right of kings, etc). It also really only works with highly agrarian societies, where there's not a large degree of specialization. This is entirely out of step with the ethos of our time, where "everyone is an individual" and where we have solidly embraced the idea that everyone should have a vote, in some form or another.

So I don't think it's true that monarchy/feudalism are bad, full stop--they did at one time serve a purpose. But they are woefully out of place in a modern world.

[laurion]

Yeah, definitely works better in an agrarian society. And although it looks like 90% supported 10%, it's more like 70% supported 20%, and that 20% supported the 9%, who supported the 1%. But it was a bidirectional relationship, and those above provided -some- downward support. An unequal bidirectional relationship, but that is true in every system out there. Brazil is having huge riots right now because their democratic system has gotten too unequal in its relationships

[lisefrac]

Only if I can be a CEO of like, Vampire Hunters, Inc ;)

This was so not the direction I expected this comment thread to take...

[huggyrei]

I know the remnants of such in the UK are a drain on the resources of the country.

That statement is... debateable. It's an ongoing discusion here. The monarchy brings in a lot of trade and tourism. The Queen also pays taxes, and owns a lot of land and personal finances; the proceeds of these are used to fund most of the monarchy's lifestyle. The only amount from the government are to fund official duties.

Which isn't to say it's a positive, but that the 'drain' thing isn't that clear cut. And I believe America spends quie a lot on its ex presidents?

Personally, I think there's value in having a figurehead as separate from the decision makers. It means we can use the Queen as the patriotic centrepiece while still getting to criticise our government. I don't know how accurate it is (probably at the least greatly exaggerated), but West Wing made me wince with how everyone treated the president like some sort of holy icon! We're pretty irreverent about our political leaders.

[huggyrei]

Also wanted to add